99 law, pointed out that “the right to unionise was affected not so much as to any denial of its existence, but as to its general practice” (This translator's version of the quotation) thanks to Law 25. In like manner the witness Manrique Mejía expressed at said public hearing that he had been dismissed on December 11, 1990, because of his participation in the December 5, 1990, work stoppage, without being able to benefit from the due process to which he was entitled by his trade union status, despite the fact that he had “a permanent [labour union] permit allowed by the law, that is [his] work was at the labour union headquarters”. Furthermore, in some of the newspaper clippings that constitute the documentary evidence in the instant case, it is remarked that most of the workers dismissed were labour union leaders, which was, therefore, a public and notorious fact. 162. The ILO Labour Union Freedom Committee, in solving case N° 1569, a decision that is recorded as part of the evidence of the record before this Court, considered that “the massive dismissal of labour union leaders and workers of the public sector because of the December 5, 1990, work stoppage, is a measure that can seriously impair the possibilities for action of the public sector trade union organisations at those institutions where they are in existence,” and that, consequently, such dismissal was a serious violation of Agreement N° 98 relative to the application of the principles of the right to unionise and to collective negotiation.60 163. For its part, the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Agreements and Recommendations, in solving case N° 1569, as shown on the referenced resolution of the Labour Union Freedom Committee, asked the State to derogate Law 25, “on which the massive dismissals were based, since it felt that it seriously attempted against the exercise of the right of public workers associations to organise their activities.”61 164. Concerning the alleged intervention of the State in the management of trade union funds, the ILO Labour Union Freedom Committee pointed out, in the already mentioned resolution (supra para. 162), that “the trade union funds must be managed by the leaders designated by the trade union by-laws and without any type of interference [since] it is the members of the trade unions who should decide whether the trade union leaders should maintain the right to manage the funds of the organisations,” and requested the State to allow “the trade union leaders of the SITIRHE access to and the management of the trade union dues, according to trade union by-laws and without any type of interference.”62 165. Concerning the alleged takeover of workers association premises by the public force and the alleged looting of their facilities, said Committee, in the already cited resolution (supra para. 162), reminded the State “that the necessary corollary of the inviolability of trade union premises is the impossibilitiy of public authorities to demand that they be allowed to enter into such premises without a court order 60 cfr. ILO. Resolution of the Labour Union Freedom Committee in Case N° 1569 “Complaints against the Government of Panama filed by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the Workers Union of the Institute of Water Resources and Electric Power Institute (SITIRHE) and the Workers Union of the National Teleccommunications Institute (SITINTEL),” para. 143.3. 61 cfr. ILO. Resolution of the Labour Union Freedom Committee in Case N° 1569, supra note 60, para. 143.6. 62 cfr. ILO. Resolution of the Labour Union Freedom Committee in Case N° 1569, supra note 60, para. 145 and 146.d.